No decision on Houses of Parliament refurb for years as ministers hand plans to Olympic-style 'delivery authority'

Parliament’s multi-billion pound refurbishment is set to be pushed into the long-grass as plans are handed to a semi-independent body to scrutinise, The Telegraph can reveal.

Ministers are preparing to announce an Olympic-style delivery authority will be created to investigate proposals for moving MPs and peers out of the building for improvements.

It means that the final binding vote on what should happen to the Palace of Westminster will not be held for another two or three years – possibly as late as 2020.

Ministers refusal to select a proposal themselves would create a major backlash from politicians warning the building is so unsafe it could suffer a “sudden, catastrophic failure”.

The announcement, currently scheduled for May, will also trigger accusations that the Government has delayed making a decision in the face of a major Tory rebellion.

Chris Byrant, the Labour MP calling for the quickest possible refurbishment, said: “We have got to choose the quickest, safest and cheapest option and we can’t run away from making a decision now. The building is in peril.”

Making refurbishments to the Palace of Westminster have been discussed for years with the building – rebuilt after the Great Fire of 1834 – in a state of disrepair.

Last year a committee of peers and MPs endorsed the boldest of three options considered – a “full decant” that would see both the Commons and the Lords moved out for six years.

The proposals would cost the least– between £3.5 and £3.9 billion – but is opposed by some MPs who fear they would never return, with another permanent venue picked instead.

The two other options are MPs and peers taking it in turns to move out, which would last 11 years and cost around £4 billion, and a “rolling programme” of works for 32 years, costing £5.7bn.

For months a decision by the Government has been expected and a vote of all MPs held but the expected date has been repeatedly pushed back with some vocal Tory critics.

This newspaper understand that plans are set to be handed over to an arms-length “delivery authority” like the one used for the London 202 Olympics before a binding vote.

“The key thing for the authority is to look at all the costs and risks before we make a final decision,” said a senior Government source.

A group of sponsors will also sit above the authority including political figures and possibly people who have experience in heritage.

The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster report on refurbishment, published in September 2016, warned about the safety risk of the building’s current stae.

There are “essential works which should be tackled alongside this work as a matter of urgency, such as works to prevent water penetration, asbestos removal, fire safety works and replacement of secondary service,” the committee wrote.

“The longer the essential work is left, the greater the risk becomes that the building might suffer a sudden, catastrophic failure, or that small, incremental failures might make the building uninhabitable. The need to tackle the work speedily has greatly influenced our deliberations on the preferred way in which to deliver the work.”

Theresa May has been named as a critic of the “full decant” option in media reports, though she is not known to have voiced a public option.

She confirmed that MPs will be given a “free vote” on whatever framework the Government proposes, meaning they will not be told by their parties how to vote.

Tory MPs are understood to be split down the middle on whether to fully move out of Parliament or to adopt a longer and more costly program of improvements.

Andrew Tyrie, the Tory MP and chair of the influential Treasury Committee, is investigating the costs attached to the plans and has raised concerns about the project.

“This is one of the largest major restorations in the history of the public sector. Apparently, it is likely to cost at least £3.5 billion over 5-8 years,” he said last month.

“This can only be justified to taxpayers if Parliament and the public see the evidence required to make an informed decision.

“The Committee’s inquiry into this hugely expensive project will challenge and assess the work and conclusions of the existing reports.

“Until such work has been carried out, it would be imprudent for Parliament to commit to a specific option.”